Lord Whitty: I am not sure why noble Lords give
the impression that I have suggested that education
action zones should treat all their schools in a uniform
way. Clearly, there will be a mix of schools, attainment,
performance, demography and history. All of those
schools will be treated differently. As to the regulations,
they will provide a very high degree of flexibility.
Neither I nor the regulations advocate--and the Bill
does not imply--a uniform approach. The bulk of the
regulations will be procedural rather than substantive
and a good deal of discretion will be left to the
education action zone. A substantial amount of
innovation about how the schools are run will be
available to the forum in the individual zones.
Nevertheless, the zone consists of a number of schools
which support, challenge and learn from one another.
The forum will be responsible for the education
attainment within the zone as a whole and therefore it
must be approached as a whole. That does not imply
uniformity or exclude the input of energy, initiative,
ideas, new management and educational techniques for
which the noble Lord is looking. Indeed, quite the
opposite. We hope that the education action zones will
deliver those differentially according to the needs of the
schools in their areas.

What we do not want to see, and fear slightly given
the noble Lord's amendment, is one school completely
outside that mutually supportive system dealing with an
entirely different management structure. Nevertheless,
I believe that most of the objectives of bringing in
expertise and so forth can be achieved within the
structure that we propose.

Baroness Blatch: In the light of the answer just given
by the noble Lord, and as I understand my noble friend's
amendment, it is only if the action forum, having looked
across the diverse range of schools, decides that a
particular school has specific needs that it goes to a third
body to which it will give its authority. It will stay
within the family of the zone but will buy in expertise,
turn that school around and give it different measures
from those required by all the other schools because the
forum has defined it as a specific issue. It is the forum
which gives birth to the proposition and retains control,

19 May 1998 : Column 1599

because that body will be accountable to the forum for
as long as it exists. If that is so, what is there to fear?
It is not outside the control of the forum because the
forum has the final responsibility to ensure that
education is improved in that area. That will be the
contract between the forum and the body given the
specific job of turning the education around in one of
its schools.

Lord Whitty: Certainly, there is no barrier to the
forum bringing in particular expertise and managing the
school in that way, subject to its overall control. It may
be that the terminology adopted in the noble Lord's
amendment gives us greater cause for concern than it
should. However, "lease out" means that for a period
one can lease out a school to a separate educational
institution. Although it will remain accountable in that
it must fulfil its contract, it will be separate from the
overall structure of the education action zone. Perhaps
there is some terminology that is half-way between us,
but the concept of leasing out gives the impression of
not simply an arm's length relationship of the kind to
which the noble Baroness referred but one in which the
school is treated completely outside the education action
zone when we want to see a mutually supportive system
between all the schools in the zone.

Lord Skidelsky: If there is some terminology that is
half-way between us, why do the Government believe
that it is not appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill?

Lord Whitty: It may be that that is something which
will be covered by the regulations and I shall think about
that proposition. However, I am not sure that we want to
start hares running by suggesting a new approach which
would mean that an individual school could be treated
separately from the whole action zone.

Lord Skidelsky: I welcome the assurance that the
Minister will reflect on the matter and possibly go half
way somewhere in the Bill to meet the arguments which
my noble friends and I have been putting forward. With
that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Disapplication of pay and conditions
order in relation to teachers at participating schools]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 65:

Page 11, line 26, leave out ("For") and insert ("After").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment,
I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 66 and 158.
If I understand the Bill correctly, if Clause 13 is passed
in its present form there will be a substantial
invalidation of part of the 1991 Act which deals with
disapplication of pay and conditions in existing
participating grant-maintained schools.

As the Minister will see from my amendments, I wish
to ensure that grant-maintained schools do not disappear
in the course of the new proposals. But whether or not
they do and whether or not we succeed in convincing
the Government, we believe that those provisions should
be transferred to the newly formed foundation schools.

19 May 1998 : Column 1600

One argument used in the past by the Minister and no
doubt destined to be used again is that although there
has been this provision for grant-maintained schools, not
many of the schools have made use of it. If only one
finds an advantage doing it, first, there is no fear on the
part of the Government that it will be operated
wholesale; and secondly, the fact that it benefits one or
two schools seems to me an argument for at least
allowing the flexibility for that provision to remain in
place.

My case is that that part of the 1991 Act should not
be repealed. Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 158 seek to
preserve what has existed in the past and what we
believe will still be a useful facility for schools,
particularly as we now have this widespread facility for
action zone schools. It may be that if the provision
works for action zone schools, it will become more
popular over time. But whether or not it becomes more
popular and whether it is taken up by one or 101 schools
is not relevant to the case I am putting. I am simply
saying that the facility has been beneficial, has done no
harm, and does not get in the way of good education.
Perhaps the Minister has interpreted the disapplication
measures as meaning, in practice, better pay and
conditions for teachers rather than a worsening of the
provisions. I await her response.

The case is a good one. It would be unfortunate if
that part of the 1991 Act were to disappear. Therefore,
I wish to ensure that those provisions are retained in
addition to the Clause 13 provisions. I beg to move.

1 a.m.

Baroness Blackstone: It is important that education
action zones are able to apply to opt out of the School
Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act, even though there is
considerable flexibility within the legislation. However,
these amendments are about allowing other types of
school to opt out. Grant-maintained schools are already
able to do so, but, as the noble Baroness admitted, only
two schools have in fact taken up the opportunity.
She is absolutely right to anticipate that, in these
circumstances, the Government do not think it right to
continue with the arrangements.

The Government do not want to extend those
freedoms to large numbers of individual schools at
present. It would be more appropriate for schools
working collectively in education action zones and with
additional resources to have that added scope. I make
the point again that EAZs are for experimentation of this
kind; they are a test bed. They may well point the way
to the future, as the noble Baroness suggested. For all
I know, there may well come a time when large numbers
of schools will benefit from greater flexibility in
teachers' pay and conditions. However, these are pilots.
I really do believe that it would not be right to allow
any grant-maintained schools to do so; that is, if they
were to survive. I know that the noble Baroness has
tabled further amendments in that respect. The intention
is that they should become foundation schools. It would
not be right at this stage for any foundation or voluntary
school to be able to opt out. We must wait and see how
a properly monitored and evaluated experiment operates

19 May 1998 : Column 1601

before we move down that particular path. In the light
of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will
feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch: That was a deeply disappointing
answer. This is not an experiment, nor are we asking for
schools to opt out. We are saying that schools should
have available to them the facility for disapplying the
pay and conditions of service for teachers. There is no
question of schools opting out and no question of
experimentation. Indeed, this has been tried and tested
over many years since grant-maintained schools were
established. Therefore, we know the consequences of
disapplying, albeit in two schools. Nevertheless, we
have seen it work in practice and observed that it
actually means a better deal for teachers when it
happens.

I took note of what the Minister said. She said
specifically that the Government do not want to extend
this to a large number of schools at the moment. But
that is precisely what the Government are doing: they
are extending it to cover over 300 schools. If there
are to be 12 zones with a possible number of
20 participating schools in each zone, that is nearly
300 schools, with another 325 schools in a matter
of six months' time. So the contention that the
Government do not wish to extend this to a large
number of schools at present is simply not true.

There is a proposition built into the Bill that this
facility will be afforded to hundreds of schools. So, first,
it is not an experiment because it has been tried and
tested. Secondly, it has not been a great threat to
teachers. In fact, those teachers who have enjoyed the
benefits of it have received more generous pay and
conditions as a result of the move. I simply cannot
understand the arguments put forward by the Minister.
I am clearly not making much headway with the
amendment, but I shall return to the matter. I beg leave
to withdraw the amendment.